Green v. Castillo, No. 14-3377 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, challenging the Parole Commission's denial of early release under 18 U.S.C. 4206(d). Pursuant to Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, courts may not review the Commission’s actual substantive decisions; rather, review is limited to whether the Board acted within the constraints of its statutory and constitutional authority. The court concluded that the Commission's broad inquiry did not involve the impermissible consideration of matters outside the scope of the Commission's authority; the Commission was free to assess petitioner's acceptance of responsibility based on the ample record and to consider his prior, similar uncharged conduct as evidence relevant to his risk of recidivism; and the Commission did not commit a plain violation of a matter which does not admit of discretion and choice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case- Habeas. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4218(b) expressly reserved the grant or denial of parole to the unreviewable discretion of the U.S. Parole Commission and the court lacks jurisdiction to review the Commission's substantive decisions; in denying Green parole, the Board acted within the constraints of its statutory and constitutional authority and did not consider matters outside the scope of its authority when it denied parole.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.